Page 2

Cover Photo

Petersen & Petersen

1

President’s Page

Judge Terri Stupica

2

A Not-so-silent Night

Lisa Carey,

Pictures by Paul Newman

3

Christmas Party Pictures

Paul Newman

4

G.C.B.A. Swearing-in Pictures

Paul Newman

5

From the Coroner’s Office

John Urbancic, M.D.

6

Cases of Interest

Pearce Leary

6

Dicta: Do Judges Know It When They

See It, or Only When They Want to

See It?

Judge Timothy J. Grendell

8

We’re In! Finally, We’re In!

Todd Petersen

11

Juvenile Detention Alternatives

Andrew Misiak

13

Law Day Flyer 14

2018 Veterans Outreach Campaign

Kurt Law Office, LLC

15

The Geauga County Bar Foundation

Todd Petersen

16

Important Updates 18

GCBA Announcements 19

Inside this issue:

Cover: Todd and Susan Petersen

celebrate the opening of their new

office.

(This Page) Bottom: New bar asso-

ciation president, Judge Terri

Stupica, thanks outgoing president,

Dennis Coyne, for his leadership

over the last year!

I am so looking forward to leading this wonderful

group in the upcoming year as President of the Geauga

County Bar Association. We have so many wonderful and

talented members, as well as very experienced and knowl-

edgeable members. As I have said previously, I know I have

big shoes to fill, as my two predecessors, Dennis Coyne and

Frank Antenucci, have really accomplished some innovative

programs and benchmarks for our Bar Association. I want to personally

thank them for their great leadership. I would like to invite everyone to feel

free to email, call, or stop by, to express an opinion or idea, good or bad,

with me. I have an open door policy at the Chardon Municipal Court, and

plan on doing so with our Bar Association members.

Looking ahead, I would love to increase the number of members in

our Bar, as well as expanding our presence even more in the community. I

am trying to have a guest speaker for the majority of the general meetings,

as I hope that knowing more about community programs and networking

with others outside our Bar opens up opportunities that may not otherwise

be known or available. I was honored to be a speaker at this year’s Ohio

Women’s Bar Foundation Leadership Institute in March in Columbus. In

meeting with Leslie Wargo, a Cleveland attorney and one of the organizers

and Foundation Board members, she

relayed that she would love for interac-

tion between our Bar and their organiza-

tion in the very near future. By work-

ing in cooperation with a statewide or-

ganization, I feel this could really ex-

pand some of the opportunities for our

Bar.

I know each and every one of

you are busy, whether with your busi-

ness, family, committee involvement,

etc., but know that your work and efforts

in this Bar and community do not go

unnoticed. I might ask to extend your-

selves a bit more this year, in addition to

what you do now, but I hope it will be

worthwhile. Thank you for all you do,

and I look forward to a great year and

seeing you at meetings and events.

Page 3

A Not-So-Silent Night

The Bar Association’s An-

nual Christmas Party, held this

year on December 14, 2017, is the

last Bar opportunity of the year to

gather with friends and co-workers

to celebrate the holidays. For the

last several years, the party has

been held at Heinen’s in Chardon,

which provides not only a nice

large private room with plenty of

room to sit and talk, but also ex-

tremely delicious selections of ap-

petizers and desserts - no one eats

dinner after this party!

With food selections by

Ann D’Amico, we were treated to

stuffed mushrooms, parmesan

chicken tenders, Guinness sliders,

buffalo deviled eggs, shrimp,

rumaki, bacon covered apricots,

hummus dip, cheese and crackers,

ambrosia, mini steak sandwiches,

and other delicious entrees and

desserts.

The important part of the

evening, though, is the swearing in

of our new Bar Association offic-

ers for 2018. Retired Judge Fred

Inderlied was on-hand to swear in

Judge Terri Stupica as President,

Kelly Slattery as President Elect,

and Susan Wieland as Treasurer.

Mike Judy is renewing his role as

Secretary but could not attend and

will be sworn in at a later date.

Congratulations to all!

Page 4

Pictures

by

Paul Newman

Page 5

Above Left and Right:

All kinds of food from the

Christmas Party!

At Left: Outgoing president

Dennis Coyne smiles after

a year well done!

Page 6 IPSO JURE VOLUME 41 ISSUE 1

pearceleary@windstream.net

In the matter of:

B.J.M., delinquent

child, 2017-Ohio-

8202

Juvenile

creates disturbance

in public park. Po-

lice officer orders him not to re-

turn or he will be cited for tres-

pass. Juvenile returns twelve days

later and is part of a disturbance on

the basket ball court. Conviction

for trespass reversed. No statuto-

ry, rule or policy criteria for of-

ficer’s order. Thus, juvenile was

denied due process.

Adams vs. Adams, 2017-Ohio-

9264

Ex-wife ordered to pay ex-

husband sums of money from her

retirement plan. She defaults. He

files a motion to show cause. She

claims her obligation was dis-

charged in bankruptcy. Trial court

denies relief finding that he should

pursue this in bankruptcy court.

Held: reversed and remanded.

State courts have concurrent juris-

diction to determine if this debt

was not dischargeable under 11

USC 523 (a)(15).

State of Ohio vs. Ferrell, 2017-

Ohio-9341

Defendant was a back seat

passenger in a car stopped for a

traffic violation. Officer asks to

search defendant’s pockets; he

consents; nothing was found. Of-

ficer then searches the socks and

finds heroin. Officer cuffs defend-

ant and asks defendant if he has a

needle and syringe which defend-

ant admits. Held: motion to sup-

press should have been granted.

Search of socks exceeded consent.

Once cuffed defendant should

have received Miranda warnings

and needle and syringe are also

inadmissible.

Fowler vs. Fimiani, 2017-Ohio-

9333

Home seller had basement

flood in 2008; basement dampness

in 2009; and basement flood in

2013. Seller disclosed first two

events but not the 2013 flood.

Held: summary judgment for seller

affirmed. “As is” clause precludes

fraudulent nondisclosure claim.

Professional inspection contingen-

cy precludes claim of justifiable

reliance on Property Disclosure

form defeating fraudulent misrep-

resentation and concealment

claims.

geaugacoroner@co.geauga.oh.us

Hi folks!

My name is John

Urbancic, M.D. and

I am your Geauga

County Coroner. I

took office January,

2017, and am serv-

ing a four year term. I've been

asked to write about my office.

A coroner's case is defined

in RC 313.12 "any person (who)

dies as a result of criminal or other

violent means, by casualty, by sui-

cide, or in any suspicious or unu-

sual manner, when any person,

including a child under two years

of age, dies suddenly when in ap-

parent good health, or when any

person with a developmental disa-

bility dies regardless of the cir-

cumstances..."

Deaths are reported to us

by physicians, nurses, EMS, po-

lice, nursing homes, assisted liv-

ings, and the hospital.

Deaths that occur in the

manner described above are under

the jurisdiction of the coroner and

RC 313.11 states "no one...shall

(Continued on page 7)

Page 7

purposely remove or disturb the

body of any person who has died

in the manner described in sec-

tion 313.12 of the Revised Code."

I have five part-time em-

ployees to help me fulfill the obli-

gations of this office. Since we

are first responders to scenes, the

four coroner's assistants help with

scene investigations, paperwork

and issuing orders concerning de-

cedents remains. All of the assis-

tants are medical professionals

who have completed further train-

ing in forensic pathology and

death scene investigation. We also

have a part-time secretary, who

assists in the maintenance of the

coroner's records, as well as

the myriad requests for infor-

mation from family members, law

enforcement, attorneys, and gov-

ernmental agencies involved in

public health and safety for exam-

ple the Ohio Violent Death Re-

porting System.

Autopsies are done for var-

ious reasons such as identification

of the deceased, determination of

cause of death when the investiga-

tion fails to point to a reasonable

cause, in cases involving children,

and cases involving motor vehicle

accidents. In determining when to

order an autopsy, we use our best

judgment in trying to balance the

issues of justice and public safety

with the issues of personal and

religious objections and of budget-

ary and system restraints. Autop-

sies are currently done by board

certified forensic pathologists at

the Cuyahoga County Medical Ex-

aminer's Office. The results are

communicated back to me, and a

death certificate is issued indicat-

ing the cause and manner of

death. Some cases are taking up to

six months to get all the reports

back due to the back log of cases

the toxicology labs are fac-

ing. This wait is a hardship for

families looking for resolution.

We are currently in an opi-

oid death epidemic. Unfortunate-

ly, Geauga County has not been

spared from the ravages of this

plague, and we have seen our

numbers of overdoses steadily

climb over the last several years

from about one death a month to

about 25 this last year. Our num-

bers do not include decedents pro-

nounced in Lake or Cuyahoga

Counties. I think the actual num-

ber of deaths this last year was

probably 60-75 for Geauga County

residents, if you take into account

those who died out of county. The

drugs involved have increased ex-

ponentially in potency, in part ac-

counting for the in-

crease in deaths and

started with heroin

and prescription

drugs like Oxyco-

done, and then mak-

ing a transition over

the last 2-3 years to

the much more po-

tent Fentanyl, and

now Carfentanil, the

"elephant tranquiliz-

er" that is so power-

ful that an amount

equal to a grain of

salt is lethal to hu-

mans. The age of

these decedents is

from 20-75 years of

age. It is not just an

issue affecting young

people.

The coroner's work is heart

-wrenching, especially when deal-

ing with otherwise young and

healthy people who are dead due

to drugs, suicide, and accidents. I

tell people we don't get called

when grandma dies with the fami-

ly standing around holding hands

and praying. We get called for

deaths that are unexpected and of-

ten violent. The families are al-

ways in shock, and it can be very

dramatic on scene and afterwards

as we counsel them. I'm sure you

lawyers know how these families

suffer as they seek to put their

lives back in order and seek an-

swers concerning their loved ones.

The Coroner's Office does

maintain records on deaths report-

ed to us. If we can be of any assis-

tance to you, please do not hesitate

to contact us.

Page 8

Grendell@geaugacourts.org

“Obiter dic-

tum,” or as it is

more frequently

(and simply) called,

“dicta,” has a defi-

nitional problem. It

seems to be rather

like pornography, in that judges

can often apply the Potter Stewart

rule of, “I know it when I see it.”2

In some cases, “dicta” can become

simply an excuse for not following

higher court decisions. The failure

to use a consistent, articulable def-

inition also means that too often,

attempts to rely on the holding/

dicta distinction are inconsistent at

best and unprincipled at worst.

Without a settled understanding of

how to determine what is dicta and

what is holding, judges may simp-

ly manipulate the use of dicta ra-

ther than rely on any serious judi-

cial analysis, short-circuiting the

reasoning of higher courts solely

to justify lower court rulings.

The Problem of Dicta

Like any common-law sys-

tem, the American legal system

requires consistency so future cas-

es can be decided based on similar

principles as those in the past.

Without this consistency, the order

inherent in our system of justice

disintegrates, leaving parties un-

certain as to the governing law and

unable to undertake effective case

strategies and the public uncertain

about how they can comply with

governmental actions. When ele-

ments of a judicial opinion and

reasoning are cast aside as mere

dicta, uncertainty skyrockets, and

public confidence in the justice

system is negatively impacted as

increasingly cynical citizens ques-

tion why lower courts have elected

not to follow the plain language of

state supreme court or appellate

court decisions. Fortunately, re-

search has shown that relatively

few reported cases involve dis-

carding some portion of a higher

court’s decision as dicta: two

scholars show that this happens in

only 1 out of about 3,000 reported

cases.3 However, my experience

makes me suspect that unreported

cases may not be consistent with

these statistics.4

Definitional Theories Likely the best-known un-

derstanding of dicta considers

whether analysis is necessary to

the court’s overall holding. As

Black’s Law Dictionary defines it,

dicta is “[a] judicial comment

made while delivering a judicial

opinion, but one that is unneces-

sary to the decision in the case and

therefore not precedential.”5

While this seems simple at first,

this conception of dicta is actually

problematic on several levels.

First, it can actually be more diffi-

cult than it might seem to deter-

mine whether a statement is neces-

sary to the court’s final holding,

particularly when considering

multi-factor tests (like strict scruti-

ny). In such an instance, if a court

finds a statute serves a compelling

governmental interest but is not

narrowly tailored, what weight

should be accorded to the compel-

ling interest analysis? Legislators

aiming to create statutory regimes

that will survive judicial review

would certainly look to this analy-

sis as instructive, but it is not,

strictly speaking, necessary to the

final holding of the court. Without

a more concrete definition of dicta,

decision makers face unpredicta-

ble outcomes, because lower

courts may choose to depart from

the reasoning of the original deci-

sion whenever that reasoning gets

in the lower court’s way. Whether

designing a plan for corporate

compliance or drafting a bill that

will survive litigation, the necessi-

ty approach risks transforming in-

structive legal reasoning into noth-

ing more than shifting sands that

can be ignored at will by lower

court judges to obtain that judge’s

desired outcome.

The necessity approach

also poses a problem in addressing

(Continued on page 9)

Page 9

alternative holdings, as neither

holding could truly be said to be

necessary to the court’s final deci-

sion, sparking criticism of this ap-

proach from some federal judges.6

The Supreme Court has suggested

that this approach should be disfa-

vored because of this problem, as

it concluded in Richmond Screw

Anchor Co. v. United States that

“It does not make a reason given

for a conclusion in a case obiter

dictum because it is only one of

two reasons for the same conclu-

sion.”7 Despite the Court’s explic-

it rejection of the logical conclu-

sion of the necessity approach,

many judges still follow this ap-

proach.

Some scholars adopt an

even more extreme approach

called fact-and-outcome or recon-

ciliation. As the name might sug-

gest, these scholars believe that

only the facts of a case and its ulti-

mate outcome are controlling—all

other analysis is dicta.8 Stare deci-

sis therefore is reduced to recon-

ciling decisions in various cases

with each other rather than at-

tempting to consistently apply

similar reasoning processes

throughout cases. However, it

seems quite clear that on a norma-

tive level, this view is not held by

a significant number of practition-

ers or judges. The attention that is

paid to the reasoning of appellate

courts, rather than to merely the

facts and outcomes, shows that

most in actual legal practice ad-

here to a broader view of what

constitutes a court’s holding than

this approach.

Other scholars advance

broader views on what constitutes

a court’s holding (or judicial rea-

soning). Abramowicz and Stearns

define holding as “propositions

along the chosen decisional path

or paths of reasoning that (1) are

actually decided, (2) are based up-

on the facts of the case, and (3)

lead to the judgment.”9 This defi-

nition recognizes that even state-

ments that are not necessarily re-

quired to produce the eventual out-

come can nonetheless be a vital

part of the court’s reasoning, and it

permits this analysis to be properly

considered part of the court’s

holding rather than discarded as

completely irrelevant. It considers

more of court opinions to be hold-

ing and less to be dicta than other

narrower approaches, but it does

so as part of an attempt to restore a

proper level of respect for the rea-

soning of prior higher courts that

considered those similar cases. Of

course, that prior reasoning may

be flawed, but the remedy there is

to depart from the precedent of

sister circuits or to overrule the

decisions of lower courts, not to

simply attempt to shoehorn the

reasoning into so-called consisten-

cy by relying on cries of “dicta” as

an attempt to salvage broader prin-

ciples from seemingly contradicto-

ry cases.

Broader approaches to un-

derstanding the holdings of a court

and a reduced willingness to dis-

miss analysis as dicta are more

faithful to the foundations of stare

decisis than extremely narrow in-

terpretations that fail to give full

authority to the reasoning process

used by courts. While it is right to

be careful to not give undue

weight to dicta, it is also danger-

ous to narrow court rulings to the

point of impotence. Doing so in-

creases the risk of judicial uncer-

tainty for lower court judges and

litigants and makes it more diffi-

cult for them to plan compliance

actions in advance. Overall at-

tempts to build a cohesive litiga-

tion strategy (particularly in the

context of public interest or civil

rights litigation) are also likely to

suffer from uncertainty posed by

the inconsistencies inherent in nar-

row understandings of what con-

stitutes holding.

Consider a brief illustra-

tion. Suppose a relator files an

action seeking a writ of mandamus

to compel a government official to

take some specific action. If the

Ohio Supreme Court denies the

writ of mandamus, reasoning

simply that (for whatever reason)

the relator has failed to prove he is

entitled to it, there is no question –

even from the most extreme think-

ers—that the Supreme Court’s rea-

soning is binding. But suppose

instead that the Supreme Court

denies the writ by observing that

not only has the hypothetical rela-

tor failed to prove he is entitled to

the writ, but that no relator would

ever be entitled to a writ of man-

damus to compel an official to

take that or a similar action. Even

though this holding would be be-

yond the scope of the facts before

the court, it seems clear that the

principle cannot be dicta if it is the

reasoning that leads to the answer

in one particular case.

How to Avoid the Pitfalls

For judges, it can be con-

venient and tempting to label por-

(Continued on page 10)

Page 10

tions of opinions as dicta, whether

to resolve seemingly contradictory

cases, to obtain a clearer answer

on close constitutional or statutory

questions, or to reach a desired

result in a case. But doing so un-

dermines the respect for precedent

that underlies the entirety of the

American legal system by strip-

ping the intellectual integrity from

the reading of cases—the chal-

lenge becomes merely resolving

the available caselaw with the de-

sired outcome instead of impartial-

ly applying those principles to the

case at hand. Judges should there-

fore hesitate to dismiss portions of

a state supreme court’s or appel-

late court’s opinion as dicta, and

as professional readers of cases we

should always assume that all lines

of judicial reasoning included in

an opinion by a higher court were

included deliberately to convey

some meaning to future courts.

The approach championed

by Abramowicz & Stearns pro-

vides a more balanced way to

evaluate cases when it appears that

a portion of the opinion may genu-

inely be dicta. Ask whether a

statement was reasoned through as

part of the decisional pathway of

the court to more easily determine

whether it is a substantive part of a

case’s reasoning. If litigants dis-

pute whether a key portion of a

case is holding or dicta, serious

analysis is needed from the court,

not merely a self-serving or con-

clusory statement that the passage

is dicta. Of course, to provide this

meaningful analysis, courts also

require a concrete definition of

dicta themselves—which is where

the three-part framework

Abramowicz & Stearns propose

shows itself far superior to other

approaches that seem to boil down

to the feelings of judges on any

given day.

When writing opinions,

judges should also be aware of the

possibility that future readers may

have a difficult time distinguishing

dicta and holding. The best solu-

tion is to write opinions that clear-

ly indicate when dicta is present.

Discussions of hypotheticals in

dicta should include words indicat-

ing uncertainty: “perhaps,”

“could,” or “might,” for instance.

If dicta comes in the form of a

short observation, a footnote could

also be an appropriate way to com-

municate that it is dicta. Better

still, dicta could be purged entirely

from an opinion (which would

likely make the opinion more

readable as well). Judges should

write with precision to avoid mis-

understandings of their intentions

in opinions.

Conclusion Judicial reasoning and

holding must be distinguished

from dicta to give appropriate

weight to each portion of a court

opinion. Judges should see dicta

when it really exists, but not simp-

ly to justify a ruling that contra-

venes the reasoning of a higher

court. While it is possible that

dicta could permit the judiciary to

act beyond its proper scope, what

is more likely is that adopting too

narrow a view of what constitutes

holding and judicial reasoning will

undermine stare decisis and create

uncertainty for litigants. Narrower

definitional theories, such as the

necessity approach, reject broad

reasoning and general principles,

but the reasoning these theories

reject is critical to understanding

the workings of the legal system.

The emphasis on written opinions

that explain a court’s decisional

process shows that most judges

seek to remain faithful to the prin-

ciples applied by prior courts. Un-

less courts are black boxes where

only the outcome is knowable,

broader approaches are needed for

the real world. Finally, judges

should refrain from casually dis-

missing relevant higher court rea-

soning as dicta solely to justify

nonconformity with that higher

court’s reasoning and ultimate rul-

ings. By adopting a clear defini-

tion of dicta, we can give proper

weight to the reasoning used by

prior courts while providing an

environment of certainty for liti-

gants. The administration of jus-

tice and public confidence in the

courts require that Ohio judges

know dicta when they see it, and

do not use it as an excuse to avoid

the reasoning included in decisions

by the Ohio Supreme Court and

appellate districts.

Endnotes: 1. Timothy J. Grendell is the presiding

judge at the Geauga County Court of

Common Pleas Probate/Juvenile Di-

vision, a position he has held since

2011. Prior to his service on the

bench, he served in the Ohio House

of Representatives from 2000 until

2004 and the Ohio Senate from 2005

until 2011. He also served in the JAG

Corps of the United States Army.

Judge Grendell received his JD from

Case Western Reserve University

School of Law, and his LLM from

the University of Virginia School of

Law. He wishes to thank Thomas L.

Siu for assistance with this article.

(Continued on page 12)

Page 11 IPSO JURE VOLUME 41 ISSUE 1

10680 Mayfield Road is

now the new home of Petersen &

Petersen.

As of February, we are op-

erational—new computers, new

case management system, new

shareholder, and a renewed ener-

gy. Furniture deliveries have fi-

nally tailed off, contractor visits

have all but wrapped up and—

aside from paralysis of analysis on

desk orders for Susan and I—

attorneys and staff are fully situat-

ed.

I’d like to tell you the

“North Royalton” designation on

our caller I.D. is because we have

a satellite office, but the truth of

the matter is that we just haven’t

figured out how to squash that

bug. The first time we call some-

one we are greeted with “Why

does it say North Royalton?” For-

tunately, it seems that nobody in

our Bar actually knows anyone

from North Royalton, so, by the

second call, they all know it is us.

We are thrilled that we

could help improve the Fowlers

Mill section of Munson Township.

My family has lived in Munson

nearly my entire life, and back

when Susan first laid eyes on the

corner of Mayfield and Fowlers

Mill, the restaurant was still opera-

tional and the Brown Barn was

still several incarnations shy of

going out of business. In the inter-

im, the property was lost to fore-

closure. A bank in Indiana tried

marketing the property with no

luck, and the property sat empty

and unmaintained.

Mike and Eric Payne had a

front row seat to the deterioration,

but had no luck persuading the

bank to be reasonable...until 2016.

The bank finally gave up, and

Mike fielded a phone call that

must have sounded like Lee sur-

rendering at Gettysburg. He and

Eric struck a deal and took over

the whole corner, broken win-

dows, leaking roofs, tall weeds,

and all. They knew Petersen &

Petersen had considered expand-

ing, so they reached out, and here

we are.

Had the Inn held some

more historic significance, we

likely would have opted to remod-

el. In reality, though, it was less

“historic” than it was just “old.”

The inside was worse than the out-

side, and its 10,000 or so square

feet didn’t lend itself to any sort of

sensible division. We opted to

(Continued on page 12)

tp@petersenlegal.com

Page 12

2. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197

(1964) (Stewart , J., concurring).

3. David Klein & Neal Devins, Dicta,

Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice in

Lower Court Decision Making, 54

WM. & MARY L. REV. 2021, 2026

(2013).

4. Though, admittedly, there is no real-

istic way to verify these statistics as

applied to unreported cases.

5. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1102

(Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. 2004).

6. See, e.g. United States v. Johnson,

256 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir. 2001)

(Kozinski, J., partial majority, partial

dissent).

7. See Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v.

United States, 275 U.S. 331, 340

(1928).

8. Shawn J. Bayern, Case Interpreta-

tion, 36 FLORIDA ST. U. L. REV. 125,

131 (2009).

9. Michael B. Abramowicz & Maxwell

L. Stearns, Defining Dicta, 57 STAN.

L. REV. 953, 1065 (2005).

build new.

To get a sense of just how

ready Munson was to see the cor-

ner rejuvenated, consider our ex-

perience before the Munson BZA.

Zoning meetings, which are often

like neighbor disputes—everyone

that shows up wants to fight, per-

spective is thrown out the window,

and the costs are al-

most always absurd.

Not so this time. We needed sev-

enteen variances. We showed up

to an unusually full room. Nerves

set in because you never know

what will be said. Then, for the

first time in my twenty-two year

career I experienced something I

never did before—every single

one of the comments was support-

ive and encouraging. Forty-five

minutes and one unanimous

vote later, we had all seventeen

variances!

I suppose I’d use the

words “refreshing and reinvig-

orating” to describe our new

offices. The entire place is

flooded by natural light and ac-

cented by open spaces with high

ceilings. Two of the three confer-

ence rooms and two of the main

offices enjoy a spectacular view

of Alpine Valley. We have space

to house our four attorneys and

two assistants, along with plenty

of space to expand. We built a

“war room” to help us centralize

trial preparation. We even includ-

ed a dorm room for the kids, so

they can knock out their home-

work while we finish a solid day’s

work.

Ultimately, we understand

the real significance of this build-

ing is that it helps us continue our

work providing “Dedicated Ser-

vice That Gets Results,” building

on past successes and strategizing

for growth in the future. We love

what we do, helping people each

and every day, now we just love

where we do it that much more.

To all those who supported

us and encouraged us during this

building process and, for that mat-

ter, throughout our careers, we say

“Thank you!”

Please, come visit. We’d

love to show you around.

Page 13

Currently, there are not

many juveniles incarcerated in the

Ashtabula County Youth Deten-

tion Center, and county officials

are not planning for any more to

be held in county. Juvenile Court

Administrator Andrew Misiak said

that the center will stop holding

the county’s juvenile delinquents

on April 30, when grant funding

will aid officials to make a recent-

ly formed juvenile intervention

and diversion program full-time.

In March 2017, Juvenile

Court joined the nationwide Juve-

nile Detention Alternatives Initia-

tive, and unveiled plans to divert

non-violent, low-risk juveniles

away from the criminal justice

system, as well as start a new re-

source center in the Ashtabula Mu-

nicipal Building, where the court’s

specialists can start same-day in-

terventions. The Resource Center

will be the entry point for all youth

in Ashtabula County.

“We envision a system

where the best personnel are as-

signed to our youth, whether it be

at school or through our systems,”

Misiak said. “We have scaled our

community response from early

intervention and diversion to a

possible youth prison commit-

ment. There are a wide range of

interventions on the spectrum and

our goal is to intervene earlier to

get to the root of the problem—to

provide better outcomes for our

kids and families.”

Misiak stressed that the

plan would not jeopardize public

safety. Juveniles deemed “high

risk” offenders will still be incar-

cerated—just not in the county.

The court is currently seeking

agreements with juvenile detention

centers in Lake, Portage/Geauga,

Mahoning, and Trumbull counties

to house Ashtabula County juve-

niles, who would be transported

out of county by some of the

court’s staff. That would also re-

duce the time county officers

spend on juvenile arrests.

Ashtabula County Children

Services Board Executive Director

Tania Burnett said, “Detention is

setting them up to learn worse be-

haviors. It continues into adult-

hood.”

She added that some par-

ents might feel that incarceration is

the only option for their child.

“With JDAI, the idea is to

teach the parents better coping

skills and parenting skills so that

parents aren’t getting to that

point.”

County Commissioners

President Kathryn Wittington said,

“The state is going towards diver-

sion in many aspects across the

board—to reduce the trauma. It’s

going to be much more positive

outcomes for the children and fam-

ilies. We’re going to be able to

have assessments done that day, if

needed—that’s huge.”

Since the court’s interven-

tion program began, more than

180 cases—ranging from simple

status to felony-level offenders—

have been diverted from the offi-

cial court process. And less than

20% have re-offended—a big suc-

cess!

Misiak said, “The Depart-

ment of Youth Services is really

excited about what we are doing, it

is working.”

Ashtabula County used to

be the fifth (5th) highest among

Ohio counties in juveniles com-

mitted to state juvenile corrections

centers, according to Tony Panzi-

no, Ohio DYS Bureau Chief.

Once a juvenile enters detention

they’re statistically more likely to

re-offend and end up in the adult

prison system later in life, Misiak

said.

Under the new program,

the court seeks to treat the family

unit or a child’s social or cognitive

conditions.

“What first drew me to the

juvenile system was a recognition

that the changes that were going

on and with the science that had

emerged concerning how to best

address issues, we were going to

be able to develop programming to

deal with the population.” Judge

Camplese stated, “The whole juve-

nile justice system is changing

right now. I want Ashtabula Coun-

ty to be on board, on the front

end.”

ajmisiak@ashtabulacounty.us

Page 14

The U.S. Constitution sets out a system of government with distinct and independent branches—Congress, the Presidency, and a Supreme Court. It

also defines legislative, executive, and judicial powers and outlines how they interact. These three separate branches share power, and each branch

serves as a check on the power of the others. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” James Madison explained in Federalist 51. Why?

Madison believed that the Constitution’s principles of separation of powers and checks and balances preserve political liberty. They provide a

framework for freedom. Yet, this framework is not self-executing. We the people must continually act to ensure that our constitutional democracy

endures, preserving our liberties and advancing our rights. The Law Day 2018 theme enables us to reflect on the separation of powers as fundamen-

tal to our constitutional purpose and to consider how our governmental system is working for ourselves and our posterity.

The Geauga County Bar Association presents:

Guest Speaker:

Judge Sean C. Gallagher, Ohio Court of Appeals

Friday, May 4, 2018

12:00 – 1:45 p.m.

Guido’s

12809 Chillicothe Road, Chesterland, Ohio

A request for one (1) hour of CLE has been approved.

The GCBA will also present the award for Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, and honor three (3) area high school students for

their essays about the Law Day theme, “Separation of Powers: Framework for Freedom.”

Menu:

Guido’s will serve lunch, which includes: Beverages, Salad, Rolls, entrée of Lemon Chicken with Cavatelli, Green Beans and Cake

for dessert.

Cost: $25.00/person

Name:

Phone or email:

Send your payment by Friday, April 20th to:

The Geauga County Bar Association

P.O. Box 750, Chardon, Ohio 44024

Please call Krystal Thompson @ (440) 286-7160 or email: secretary@geaugabar.org with any questions

Page 15

KURT LAW OFFICE, LLC

2018 Veterans Outreach Campaign Do you know a Veteran who needs legal help? Whether it is in relation to a VA Benefits issue, a Power of Attorney, a Last Will and Testament or something else, Kurt Law Office is committed to ensuring that the professional services our local Veterans need are available to them in 2018. For its part, KLO has scheduled a series of FREE events at which Veterans will be provided information on legal issues pertinent to Veterans. Compli-mentary refreshments will be provided and certain pro bono, reduced rate, and limited-scope legal services (including “unbundled” pro se assistance) will be made available based upon demonstrated financial need. Please see and share the program dates at right. Presentation content may be duplicative. All events are to take place at 11:00 A.M. in Kurt Law’s Lake County office. Attendees may (but are not required to) RSVP, and may also email advance questions to support@KurtLawOffice.com. Most information will be general in nature, but free initial consultations (up to 30 minutes) may be held pri-vately on-site. Depending upon attorney availability, such consultations may or may not be able to be conducted the same day.

ADVERTISING MATERIAL; Kurt Law Office, LLC is responsible for the content of this Advertisement.

Schedule of events:

Saturday, May 26

Saturday, June 30

Saturday, November 10

Lake County 30432 Euclid Ave., #101

Wickliffe, Ohio 44092 (440) 516-1010

Geauga County

401 South St., #2B-5 Chardon, Ohio 44024

(440) 285-7750

Ashtabula County 26 S. Chestnut St.

Jefferson, Ohio 44047 (440) 536-4149

WWW.KURTLAWOFFICE.COM

On Social Media @KURTLAWOFFICE

Page 16

The Geauga County Bar Foundation

c/o Todd Petersen, President Petersen & Petersen 10680 Mayfield Road Chardon, Ohio 44024

(440) 279-4480 tp@petersenlegal.com

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING AND ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION

Dear Trustees, Fellows, and potential Fellows of the Geauga County Bar Foundation:

Please be advised the next meeting of the Geauga County Bar Foundation of Trustees will be held at the new

offices of Petersen & Petersen. The date and time is to be determined. Petersen & Petersen is relocating to the

site of the former Fowlers Mill Restaurant, just downhill from the Brown Barn and just east of Alpine Valley

Ski Resort in beautiful Munson Township, Ohio. If you are plugging it into your GPS, use 10700 Mayfield

Road, Chardon, Ohio 44024 and it will get you close enough to find our new red and grey building (the new

address is still up in the air).

The meeting will be the Annual Meeting and we will use it to catch attendees up on the business of the Bar

Foundation and, hopefully, find some new blood for the Board of Trustees. Your attendance at this meeting is

invited, encouraged, requested, sought after, needed and wanted. The Bar Foundation needs new participants

(encourage a fellow attorney to join), new leaders (be one) and new ideas (bring many).

Attached please find a Membership Application/Renewal form. Membership is easy: You must be in good

standing, you must be a member of the Geauga County Bar Association and you must pay an annual contribu-

tion of $25.00 per year. There is an exception for Life Fellows, as their initial contribution is considered pay-

ment in full for their ongoing contributions.

We have not sought annual contributions in quite some time. Despite that, we have been able to fund a variety

of projects, programs and scholarships. Now the time has come to seek a new commitment from the Fellows

such that we can continue this charitable arm of the Bar Association. Please consider renewing your fellowship

and getting involved. We’d love to have you.

We hope to see you at the meeting. Date and time will soon follow.

Very truly yours,

Geauga County Bar Foundation

Todd Petersen, President

Page 17

Page 18 IPSO JURE VOLUME 41 ISSUE 1

Important Updates

Good Deeds Program Schedule for 2018

Deeds can be picked up at the Geauga County Recorder’s Office

between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m.

All Meetings will be held at the Geauga Probate Court

May 2018

Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:30 p.m.

October 2018

Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:30 p.m.

Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 6:30 p.m.

Job Posting from the Juvenile Court

The Geauga County Juvenile Court is seeking to contract with an attorney to assist

the Court in presenting evidence in support of allegations of Complaints in non-

bindover and non-SYO delinquency and unruly cases, pursuant to Juv. R. 29(E)

(1). Compensation is negotiable. If interested, please send a letter to Kim Laurie,

Geauga County Juvenile Court, 231 Main St, 2nd Floor, Chardon, OH 44024.

Please note that there is one correction from the last edition:

Erratum noted to Judge Fuhry’s recent Ipso Jure article “Other-Acts” Evidence to

Prove Character: When is Probative Value Trumped by Unfair Prejudice? At the

top of page eight, middle column, Evid. R. 404(B) is inaccurately reproduced:

“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not inadmissible to prove the charac-

ter.” It should read “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to

prove character.” Bet you already caught it on your own.

Page 19 IPSO JURE VOLUME 41 ISSUE 1

In Memoriam:

Our condolences go out to the

family of Vince Kelleher,

former bar member, who passed

away on January 25, 2018.

Sympathy to Happy DiCenso

and her family on the

passing of her father,

Charles Wern, Jr.,

on February 13, 2018.

Law Day:

May 4, 2018 at 12:00 noon

(See Page 14 for details)

New Members:

Kristen Rine—Geauga County

Prosecutor’s Office (Civil)

Kelly Wallenfelsz—Geauga

County Prosecutor’s Office (JFS)

Janice Zupon—Kaman &

Cusimano, LLC

Zachary Fela—Turk Apelis

Chagrin Falls Legal Clinic

The next Legal Clinic at

Chagrin Falls Park is

May 19, 2018

Geauga County Bar Association Announcements

Website:

Check out the Geauga

County Bar Association

Website for updated

meeting dates, deadlines,

and other important in-

formation at

www.geaugabar.org

Upcoming Executive

Committee Meetings

Second Wednesday of

each month at 12:00

noon

Next Meetings:

April 11, 2018

May 9, 2018

R.S.V.P. to the

G.C.B.A. Secretary

Upcoming General

Meetings

Fourth Wednesday of

each month at 12:00

noon

Next Meetings:

April 25, 2018

May 23, 2018

R.S.V.P. to the

G.C.B.A. Secretary

Executive Secretary: Krystal Thompson (440)286-7160 Secretary@geaugabar.org

Ipso Jure Editor: Robin L. Stanley (440)285-3511 rstanley@peteribold.com

Geauga County Bar Associat ion

President Judge Terri Stupica (440) 286-2670

President-Elect Kelly Slattery (440) 285.2242 KSlattery@tddlaw.com

Secretary Michael Judy (440) 729-7278 mike@mikejudylaw.com

Treasurer Susan Wieland (440) 279-2100 Susan.wieland@gcpao.com

Ipso Jure

Deadlines:

Mark your calendars

and turn in an article!

April 30, 2018

June 15, 2018

Quick Reminders Next Executive

Committee Meeting:

April 11 at 12:00 noon

Next General Meetings:

April 25 at 12:00 noon

Law Day: May 4, 2018 at 12:00 noon

at Guido’s in Chesterland

We hope to see you at the Bar Association’s next event!